That, or the other side is populated by unicorns and rainbows. Which do you find more likely?
Are We Living Inside A Blackhole?
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
That, or the other side is populated by unicorns and rainbows. Which do you find more likely?
Nah, this is just a different spin on "what's behind our universe". So if we are inside a black hole of another universe, what's up with that universe? You can ask that silly question again and again. What came before the big bang? And what came before that which came before the big bang? And what's outside our universe? And what is outside of that?
Relativity theory has a problem with black holes. Which eventually means that relativity theory has a flaw, plain and simple. We know 4% of what's going on in our universe, and the rest is explained with dark matter and dark energy, stuff that we can't see, but it fills in the blanks of formulas that cannot explain what's going on out there. This is ridiculous.
Aww come on, it was funny.
Relativity theory has a problem with black holes. Which eventually means that relativity theory has a flaw, plain and simple. We know 4% of what's going on in our universe, and the rest is explained with dark matter and dark energy, stuff that we can't see, but it fills in the blanks of formulas that cannot explain what's going on out there. This is ridiculous.
Aww come on, it was funny.
Liberate tutemae ex TrekBBS...
How about a much simpler explanation that does away with the concepts of accelerating expansion of the universe with Earth at dead center, the Big Bang, and a lot of other colorful stuff, even though it may take the fun out of it?
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html
The universe has no center.
Basically, it expands like a blueberry muffin in the oven. The blueberries are the galaxies, the dough between is the space between galaxies. It does not expand from a specific center, it expands from every point at once. Which is why galaxies far far away from us move much faster than galaxies closer to us.
Here are two animations showing the effect (not entirely accurate, but you should get the idea of what I am babbling about):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Cjxd4Mjog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xTzM5vx1wc
The thing is, no matter where you are (Milky Way galaxy, Andromeda galaxy, doesn't matter) it will always appear to you like you are in the center of the universe. Which is good news for every egoist out there.
Basically, it expands like a blueberry muffin in the oven. The blueberries are the galaxies, the dough between is the space between galaxies. It does not expand from a specific center, it expands from every point at once. Which is why galaxies far far away from us move much faster than galaxies closer to us.
Here are two animations showing the effect (not entirely accurate, but you should get the idea of what I am babbling about):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9Cjxd4Mjog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xTzM5vx1wc
The thing is, no matter where you are (Milky Way galaxy, Andromeda galaxy, doesn't matter) it will always appear to you like you are in the center of the universe. Which is good news for every egoist out there.
Well, if the universe is finite, it DOES have a geographic center. However, like I said, it would not be an especially important section of the universe, because like you said, the whole thing is expanding. On top of that, the universe is extremely homogeneous at the largest scales (tens of billions of ly). So we could be close or far from the center and never know. We wouldn't even be able to detect or determine it. It could also be a trillion light years away and the light from its galaxies will never reach us before the universe dies.
If the universe is infinite, well, then it obviously has no center.
If the universe is infinite, well, then it obviously has no center.
And thus, my head explodes at the possibility of universes within the black holes of our universe and our universe is inside the blackhole of another universe
In a trillion years the only thing left in the universe may be black holes and a few old, dying red/white/brown dwarf stars. I'd call that essentially dead.
I'm still partial to the idea that the universe is a closed hypersphere, so while it is finite, it truly has no center.
"Dark energy"? What are they smoking? ...
What happened to good old "Newton's Law"?.. and "accelerating" maybe it's just centrifugal force from the rotation .. err .. the Universe IS rotating isn't it?
If not .. I withdraw the theory .. and give me some of that dark energy!
Way too much is explained with dark energy and dark matter. "Dark" meaning that we never measured any of it. Meaning that it only exists to compensate for errors in the current theories.
I think current theories in physics are going to fall flat on their faces sooner or later.
I think current theories in physics are going to fall flat on their faces sooner or later.
Unless it's a closed hypersphere.
If that were the case (an infinite never ending single universe) .. we may as well nominate Earth as the center.
It would also make me believe in the possibility of a God.
It's more like they know what X (X being the expansion rate of the universe) is, and that's lead to a pretty good idea of how much dark energy there is, they just have no idea what DE is. Hence the term "dark." Vacuum energy seems most compelling, which is the idea that there is some innate level of energy that allows a cubic foot of space to exist as a cubic foot of space. That there is a minuscule amount of energy that, multiplied by the vast volume of space, is enough to drive expansion.
Like many scientific issues, the problem lies not in the work, but in the naming. Dark Energy connotes that we have a rough idea what it is, where to find it, and that it is both energetic and dark, which is counterintuitive. In reality, it means that there is energy out there driving a process (the expansion of the universe), that we can't easily detect, so it's called "dark." Dark is an admission of ignorance that will disappear when we determine what exactly it is.
Dark Energy is just the force that's driving the acceleration in the rate of universal expansion. I gave and idea of WHAT it is above. It is by no means the only theory out there.
Dark Matter is a little easier to grasp. We know it exists because of how it gravitationally alters objects at the galactic scale. We do not know what type of matter it is, or if it's a single type of matter. It could well be a mix of normal matter and exotic stuff. Perhaps there are more neutrinos in the universe. It could be a whole bunch of stuff, but most observations point to exotic particles that don't interact with photons (so we can't see it), probably don't have a nuclear reaction, and only appear to interact with normal matter via gravity. So it only interacts via 1 of the 4 forces of the universe, making it really hard to figure out what it is.
It's not really expanding for a central point. It's expanding in all directions. So that any one point is racing away from any other given point in space at the same rate. This is why the center of the universe isn't particularly relevant, because our part of space is expanding just as much, and in as many directions, as the center. Like another posted suggested, imagine a muffin with raisins in it. As you bake it, it expands in all directions, not from a center, even though it has a geometric center that you can measure from the outside with a ruler. The center isn't any different than any other part of the muffin's insides, and if you couldn't measure it's dimensions (because you're stuck in the muffin and can never, ever get outside of it and place a ruler next to it) you'd never be able to tell which raisin is closest to the center, because EVERYTHING is expanding and it's all homogeneous.
The universe, at the largest scales is utterly and almost completely featureless. You'll see, now and again, maps of the observable universe like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMAP_2010.png .That map makes it look like there's features out there, that the red part is vastly different from the blue part. Until you realize that the average is 2.725 kelvin, with a total variance of +/- 0.0001 degrees. The universe only varies 0.004% from it's greatest extremes. To put into perspective how flat and featureless that is, if the Earth's crust only varied 0.004%, Mt. Everest would be 1 foot above sea level, the deepest trench would be 1.1 feet below sea level.
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
STR
Dark energy and dark matter mean we experimentally observed something that contraticted general relativity and we have no ideea what it is.
The pioneer effect contradicts general relativity, too.
O, there are speculations - like dark matter or the vacuum energy you mentioned - but so far, no one was able to make a convinving case that any form of energy/matter we know of (or even just hypothethise about) is responsible for this. And no one identified matter/energy with the hypothetical properties the dark matter/energy should have (vacuum energy should curve space, bringing masses togetther, rather than driving them apart).
Here's another specualtion - general relativity is incomplete and thus, it doesn't give correct predictions in certain situations.
Dark energy and dark matter mean we experimentally observed something that contraticted general relativity and we have no ideea what it is.
The pioneer effect contradicts general relativity, too.
O, there are speculations - like dark matter or the vacuum energy you mentioned - but so far, no one was able to make a convinving case that any form of energy/matter we know of (or even just hypothethise about) is responsible for this. And no one identified matter/energy with the hypothetical properties the dark matter/energy should have (vacuum energy should curve space, bringing masses togetther, rather than driving them apart).
Here's another specualtion - general relativity is incomplete and thus, it doesn't give correct predictions in certain situations.
Similar threads
